naturalbornposer:Terrorist is a buzz word. Our government uses far more terror tactics at home and abroad than any "evil" group of angry foreigners. 9/11 didn't "terrorize" us anywhere near as much as an 11 year war in Afghanistan does to those people.

Okay, I'll bite.

I worked in national defense and counter-terrorism for nearly a decade. You're talking utter nonsense when you equate domestic rhetoric and politics with a long-established campaign of terror.

Drone strikes suck; they suck less than leveling cities, which is what we did to put a stop to things in prior wars. They're an imperfect attempt to surgically target real terrorists, and intent DOES matter in this case. As long as using innocents as shields is a tool in the terrorist arsenal, we'll have to find a way to get past that with minimum bloodshed and human suffering.

I agree it would be best in the long run to get the hell out of there. It would be safer for us in the short run, too, but it what it emphatically would NOT be is smart policy, tactically sound, or morally right.

By and large, the US military responds, when using force, with a strong emphasis on avoiding collateral damage like mosques and innocent civilians. We generally use it carefully and with precision unmatched in the history of the world. We failed that standard under Bush; we've done better under Obama. Three-plus years of more sensible policy cannot instantly overcome 8+ years of misery, but our goals are clearer and the mission better defined than ever before.

We also make mistakes, and we have some real idiots and asshats that manage to make it into decision-making positions from time to time. For the most part, we fess up and apologize and try to make it right.

If we cut and run with no plan, which is what one set of our home-grown extremists want, we're saying that our word as a nation is worthless, that we won't honor obligations, and that our commitments to friends and allies amount to little more than air.

If we leave gradually, there's more chance of something stable existing there when we've gone -- and far LESS chance of terrorists regaining a foothold. We overstay our welcome, we create more terrorists. We're on track, for the first time in a decade, to leave war behind in the next two years.

We won't convert the true haters; we will annoy many people who live where we've intruded.

I'm certainly not pro-war, but once begun it needs to be managed carefully.

ciberido:The Dog Ate My Homework: I've never really understood the supposed "outrage" over the use of drones. The only difference between a drone and a regular aircraft is that the pilot for one is thousands of miles away sitting in an office while the pilot for the other is actually in the aircraft. Does it hurt less if you get blown up by a drone? Because I don't see the difference.

There's a fundamental concept, going back hundreds of years or more, that the other side deserves to be able to fight back. In the middle ages, it was concern about crossbowmen and archers being able to take out knights from a safe distance. When guns were first introduced to Japan, it was considered terrible that one man with a gun could shoot a samurai off his horse before he could close. During the early years of the American revolution, American tactics of hiding behind trees and using an early form of camouflage were thought of as despicable by the British, who were still marching in straight lines while wearing brightly-colored uniforms. (At least that's how the story goes; it appears to be more myth than fact).

At least with a manned aircraft you can hope to capture or kill the pilot by shooting down the plane. With an unmanned drone, even blowing it completely up doesn't incapacitate an enemy. You've just cost them money. It just seems unfair that you can't really fight back in any meaningful way to that particular attack.

Bear in mind that I'm talking about people's feelings. I'm not trying to argue the logic of the position.

The ability of the other to strike back is part of it, however there is also the worry that the killing becomes too sanitized and "too easy". There are more than a few arguments that the shift to an all volunteer military made the USA more likely to adventuring all over the world. That fact that the troops sign up seems to make people case that much less, and since our press very rarely reports what is happening to the other side... well that's all the war we get. Killbots, well they just make this worse. yeah they hurt in that they eat up the treasury, at least the raw materials do, but for every one that goes down a replacement must be made, so it's nice job security, all at the minimal cost of some people no one here will ever know or see. Bonus? if there are no troops, there are also no embedded reporters, unless they are embedded on the other side, in which case... oops.

I'm not opposed to kilbots, I make killbots. However, since the political repercussions of using killbots appear to be damn near zero... I do worry about their abuse just a bit.

Fallout Boy:Again, I'm still waiting for a real liberal to show up on Fark. That, or for someone to finally admit that Obama is a practical president, and will never be the idealistic liberal people like to pretend he is.

I consider myself a liberal. I voted for Obama. I admit that Obama is a practical president, and will never be the idealistic liberal people like to pretend he is. And I'm glad to have made your day.

imgod2u:Erm, not in all cases? Soldiers in Afghanistan have taken in plenty Prisoners of War and either handed them off to a local government to be tried and executed (e.g. Saddam) or taken them out (e.g. bin Laden).

If Bin Laden had been captured alive it would have been illegal for the soldiers to then execute him.

Not saying that everything is always done by the book but this is what the book says. And we are discussing the legalities of things here.

Holocaust Agnostic:Keizer_Ghidorah: Tat'dGreaser: Cpl.D: The thing I like about drone strikes is less people in harm's way, less civilian casualties. As long as they do the targeting right and the local intel isn't on crack. I do think drone strikes are the best alternative. Until something better comes along, anyway. Or even better yet, people finally grow up and this shiat isn't necessary.

Yea not so much

Look I'm all for killing the bad guys but at this point we're just creating new ones. Plus it's kind of hypocritical for people to yell about one side doing this and then be fine with another side doing it.

The other side did it by invading the wrong country on false charges and spending eight years accomplishing nothing.

So what?

So it's like comparing a team of liscened demolitionists to a guy ramming a pickup against a building to knock it down. Bush attacked an innocent Iraq on flase premises while declaring bin Laden unimportant, then it spread to other countries, and it accomplished nothing. Under Obama we have bin Laden dead, Ghadaffi dead, our troops out of Iraq, and surgical strikes as opposed to troops in harm's way.

And as I said in a previous response, we're not shooting and bombing willy-nilly. We do have spy drones, informants, and other intelligence over there, along with the assistance of the Yemeni. Civilian casualties are bad, unfortunately they're expected in wartime, but we're not deliberately aiming ar random civilians like you people seem to think.

Baumli:Vectron: A U.S. drone strike targeted a group of "al-Qaida militants" on the outskirts of the Yemeni capital Sanaa on Wednesday night, killing at least three "terrorists", government officials said.

And we know they were terrorists because the goverment told us so.You people are pathetic.

Because you would know more about what terrorist looks like than a government that spends ~700 billion $ on military espionage and operation annually, right? Having faith in your government used to be called patriotism, but I guess it's a new concept to some people./nice tinfoil hat sir/Obama 2012

Patriotism?Look, AIPAC runs congress and has a great deal of influence in foreign policy decisions. That organization wants to make sure that American actions benefit Israel. Then you have the military industry. Do you think those people want to see an end to wars? You are putting a lot of faith in little people when huge interests are at work.

We keep getting back to who sets the definition of people that pose a risk to America. I don't think those people over there pose a risk to me. And if they do, they would be a lot less likely to if American troops weren't over there.

Also the US has enough military power to act however it wants around the world. If there is blowback though someday don't be surprised.

Fallout Boy:You do know that drone strikes have been ordered specifically by Obama to kill American citizens in the past, right? That just because you are associated with terrorist organizations, it doesn't take away your right as an American to stand trail and have due process? That what Obama has done would give even Bush and Cheney raging boners? That you give liberals a bad name?

Sticky Hands:The ability of the other to strike back is part of it, however there is also the worry that the killing becomes too sanitized and "too easy". There are more than a few arguments that the shift to an all volunteer military made the USA more likely to adventuring all over the world. That fact that the troops sign up seems to make people case that much less, and since our press very rarely reports what is happening to the other side... well that's all the war we get. Killbots, well they just make this worse. yeah they hurt in that they eat up the treasury, at least the raw materials do, but for every one that goes down a replacement must be made, so it's nice job security, all at the minimal cost of some people no one here will ever know or see. Bonus? if there are no troops, there are also no embedded reporters, unless they are embedded on the other side, in which case... oops.

jvowles:If we cut and run with no plan, which is what one set of our home-grown extremists want, we're saying that our word as a nation is worthless, that we won't honor obligations, and that our commitments to friends and allies amount to little more than air.

What? We've just dumped a bunch of people under the bus over there. Mubarak, Gadaffi, Saddam. We have no friends and allies over there. Nobody should trust us.

And regarding the rest of the post, it is quite possible that all of you smart guys are just flat out wrong. The middle east is what it is. I am afraid we have spent a lot of money and killed a bunch of people for not alot in return.

imgod2u:Keizer_Ghidorah: Tat'dGreaser: Cpl.D: The thing I like about drone strikes is less people in harm's way, less civilian casualties. As long as they do the targeting right and the local intel isn't on crack. I do think drone strikes are the best alternative. Until something better comes along, anyway. Or even better yet, people finally grow up and this shiat isn't necessary.

Yea not so much

Look I'm all for killing the bad guys but at this point we're just creating new ones. Plus it's kind of hypocritical for people to yell about one side doing this and then be fine with another side doing it.

The other side did it by invading the wrong country on false charges and spending eight years accomplishing nothing.

(he's talking about Al Qaeda, not Bush; they also indiscriminately kill civilians of "the other side")

Farking Canuck:imgod2u: Being able to target and kill someone for alleged crimes (or even intention of a crime) without trial or jury isn't Judge Dreddy? I realize it's not on Americans but is it really that much of a stretch to say that doing it to civilians of other nations (whom we have not declared war on) is still very very wrong?

Are you suggesting that, in a more conventional war, the military needs to put every foot soldier of the enemy on trial and convict before launching an attack? Or do you possibly accept that the rules are different when you are at war.

What war? Have we declared war on Yemen? No? Then we're killing civilians. Soldiers would not be allowed in Yemen as that would be a violation of their sovereignty.

Traditionally, when you are at war, if you positively identify an enemy who has not surrendered, they are a legitimate target (we're talking broad strokes here - not detailed rules of engagement).

Or are you arguing that the US is not at war with the Taliban / Al Queda (sp?)??

Traditionally, in war, you have a sovereign organization with a power structure and a standing army who you can defeat and accept a surrender from. Al Qaeda is not that. And thus, the approach of "it's safe to kill anytime we feel" isn't exactly apt either.

There are several complications that make the rules different than a traditional war:1. The combatant is not centrally controlled; even if Al Qaeda's leaders surrendered and pinky promised never to attack the U.S. again, that doesn't mean other branches or individuals won't keep attacking. This isn't a foreign nation.2. The combatants are embedded in other sovereign nations for which we do not have the right -- and in many cases are not given the right -- to enter and exercise our police force in.3. The combatants are not of any one nationality or organization that can be defeated. Nor can they ever be truly defeated. At any time, anywhere -- including inside the U.S. -- some crazy nutjob can be pissed enough about the current state of the world to perform an act of terror. Treating this like a war where one side can surrender and it'd all be over is farcical on its face.

Terrorism is like crime; not like war. Dealing with it requires a global police force -- or coalition of police forces -- that deals with such crime. And such a system only works -- and is morally defensible -- if there is a trial and jury system.

corronchilejano:Giltric: The Bush administration tried to link Iraq and AQ but they were going in regardless due to the various UN resolutions Iraq violated....the AQ link if it materialized would have just been icing on the cake.

Yeah no, Kofi Annan said so.

But please, let's not go back there. It is a silly place.

1441 was a response to Iraq violating other UN resolutions...and your smoking gun is Kofi Annan wanting to write another resolution in response to Iraq violating 1441.....sounds like Kofi Annan was an incompetent leader....or was trying to keep the oil for food scandal money flowing.....

Farking Canuck:imgod2u: Erm, not in all cases? Soldiers in Afghanistan have taken in plenty Prisoners of War and either handed them off to a local government to be tried and executed (e.g. Saddam) or taken them out (e.g. bin Laden).

If Bin Laden had been captured alive it would have been illegal for the soldiers to then execute him.

Not saying that everything is always done by the book but this is what the book says. And we are discussing the legalities of things here.

We're discussing what's right. The case of bin Laden illustrates how things are not always clear-cut. In that particular case, the kill-order was given. But my point is that it takes a human being to be there, see the target, exercise judgement and make the call (or inform his superiors such that he/she can make the call).

My fear is that drones and other such remote killing machines takes away that staring-him-in-the-face human aspect and that would lead to a lot of trigger happiness; it's easy to push a button to kill someone you never have to look in the face.

imgod2u:Farking Canuck: imgod2u: Being able to target and kill someone for alleged crimes (or even intention of a crime) without trial or jury isn't Judge Dreddy? I realize it's not on Americans but is it really that much of a stretch to say that doing it to civilians of other nations (whom we have not declared war on) is still very very wrong?

Are you suggesting that, in a more conventional war, the military needs to put every foot soldier of the enemy on trial and convict before launching an attack? Or do you possibly accept that the rules are different when you are at war.

What war? Have we declared war on Yemen? No? Then we're killing civilians. Soldiers would not be allowed in Yemen as that would be a violation of their sovereignty.

Traditionally, when you are at war, if you positively identify an enemy who has not surrendered, they are a legitimate target (we're talking broad strokes here - not detailed rules of engagement).

Or are you arguing that the US is not at war with the Taliban / Al Queda (sp?)??

Traditionally, in war, you have a sovereign organization with a power structure and a standing army who you can defeat and accept a surrender from. Al Qaeda is not that. And thus, the approach of "it's safe to kill anytime we feel" isn't exactly apt either.

There are several complications that make the rules different than a traditional war:1. The combatant is not centrally controlled; even if Al Qaeda's leaders surrendered and pinky promised never to attack the U.S. again, that doesn't mean other branches or individuals won't keep attacking. This isn't a foreign nation.2. The combatants are embedded in other sovereign nations for which we do not have the right -- and in many cases are not given the right -- to enter and exercise our police force in.3. The combatants are not of any one nationality or organization that can be defeated. Nor can they ever be truly defeated. At any time, anywhere -- including inside the U.S. -- some crazy nutjob can be pissed eno ...

What are the goals of the Al Queda ( too lazy to research)?What are they fighting for?

kriegsgeist:Holocaust Agnostic: Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence.

Liberals don't actually mind imperialism, war crime, and atrocity, but by God it had damned well better be efficient!

Obama gets thousands killed for pennies on the dollar and the pale:brown ratio is far more acceptable.

Or maybe it's that extremists don't drive the democratic party's agenda. Or dictate administration policy. Another way to look at it is that blanket stereotypes are stupid and are just used to keep you ignorant.

Vectron:imgod2u: Farking Canuck: imgod2u: Being able to target and kill someone for alleged crimes (or even intention of a crime) without trial or jury isn't Judge Dreddy? I realize it's not on Americans but is it really that much of a stretch to say that doing it to civilians of other nations (whom we have not declared war on) is still very very wrong?

Are you suggesting that, in a more conventional war, the military needs to put every foot soldier of the enemy on trial and convict before launching an attack? Or do you possibly accept that the rules are different when you are at war.

What war? Have we declared war on Yemen? No? Then we're killing civilians. Soldiers would not be allowed in Yemen as that would be a violation of their sovereignty.

Traditionally, when you are at war, if you positively identify an enemy who has not surrendered, they are a legitimate target (we're talking broad strokes here - not detailed rules of engagement).

Or are you arguing that the US is not at war with the Taliban / Al Queda (sp?)??

Traditionally, in war, you have a sovereign organization with a power structure and a standing army who you can defeat and accept a surrender from. Al Qaeda is not that. And thus, the approach of "it's safe to kill anytime we feel" isn't exactly apt either.

There are several complications that make the rules different than a traditional war:1. The combatant is not centrally controlled; even if Al Qaeda's leaders surrendered and pinky promised never to attack the U.S. again, that doesn't mean other branches or individuals won't keep attacking. This isn't a foreign nation.2. The combatants are embedded in other sovereign nations for which we do not have the right -- and in many cases are not given the right -- to enter and exercise our police force in.3. The combatants are not of any one nationality or organization that can be defeated. Nor can they ever be truly defeated. At any time, anywhere -- including inside the U.S. -- some crazy nutjob can be p ...

I'm guessing it's something about religious fundamentaism and the downfall of Western civilization

Smeggy Smurf:ciberido: Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence

lakrfool: Fartbongo?!?

Really?!?!?

Yeah, well, that's Smeggy Smurf for you. It's not exactly the first time.

There's an ignore button if you tire of his shenanigans.

If ChimpyMcFlightsuit was good enough for your side then Fartbongo is good enough.

imgod2u:Farking Canuck: imgod2u: Being able to target and kill someone for alleged crimes (or even intention of a crime) without trial or jury isn't Judge Dreddy? I realize it's not on Americans but is it really that much of a stretch to say that doing it to civilians of other nations (whom we have not declared war on) is still very very wrong?

Are you suggesting that, in a more conventional war, the military needs to put every foot soldier of the enemy on trial and convict before launching an attack? Or do you possibly accept that the rules are different when you are at war.

What war? Have we declared war on Yemen? No? Then we're killing civilians. Soldiers would not be allowed in Yemen as that would be a violation of their sovereignty.

Traditionally, when you are at war, if you positively identify an enemy who has not surrendered, they are a legitimate target (we're talking broad strokes here - not detailed rules of engagement).

Or are you arguing that the US is not at war with the Taliban / Al Queda (sp?)??

Traditionally, in war, you have a sovereign organization with a power structure and a standing army who you can defeat and accept a surrender from. Al Qaeda is not that. And thus, the approach of "it's safe to kill anytime we feel" isn't exactly apt either.

There are several complications that make the rules different than a traditional war:1. The combatant is not centrally controlled; even if Al Qaeda's leaders surrendered and pinky promised never to attack the U.S. again, that doesn't mean other branches or individuals won't keep attacking. This isn't a foreign nation.2. The combatants are embedded in other sovereign nations for which we do not have the right -- and in many cases are not given the right -- to enter and exercise our police force in.3. The combatants are not of any one nationality or organization that can be defeated. Nor can they ever be truly defeated. At any time, anywhere -- including inside the U.S. -- some crazy nutjob can be pissed eno ...

Then it's a system that will never work, because we would need everyone to cooperate with each other, and that's an impossibility in the Middle East, which has been fighting with itself for the last 2,000 years and shows no sign of stopping.

I don't care for what we're doing over there, either, mostly for economic and our troops' safety reasons. But unless something incredible happens, there will be people who view us as enemies to be destroyed for religious, political, or moral reaons. If we leave, they'll be emboldened by our seeming "surrender", and if we stay we're gonna get more people angry. It's become a "damne dif we do, damne dif we don't" scenario.

/of course, we're also partly reaping what we sowed back in the 60's and 70's with our extreme anti-communism attitude that made us do some reprehensible things in places like the Middle East

Vectron: A U.S. drone strike targeted a group of "al-Qaida militants" on the outskirts of the Yemeni capital Sanaa on Wednesday night, killing at least three "terrorists", government officials said.

And we know they were terrorists because the goverment told us so.You people are pathetic.

So vote republican? Not sure what you are trying to say here - plenty of people who voted for Obama don't agree with all of his foreign policy decisions or his stance on things like domestic wiretapping and Guantanamo Bay. The problem is, the republican camp looks a hell of a lot worse.

That's why i didn't voteam part of the problem.

A write-in is better than a no-show. and to be honest a democrat is better than a write-in, but only because of the current political climate.

lakrfool:Smeggy Smurf: ciberido: Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence

lakrfool: Fartbongo?!?

Really?!?!?

Yeah, well, that's Smeggy Smurf for you. It's not exactly the first time.

There's an ignore button if you tire of his shenanigans.

If ChimpyMcFlightsuit was good enough for your side then Fartbongo is good enough.

OgreMagi:Well, since it was authorized by the Yeman government, it can't be classified as a terrorist act. Had he done it without their authorization it would have been considered an act of war - like what we've been doing in Pakistan, but fark Pakistan.

You seem very, very confused about the definitions of bilateral action and host nation authorization. The differences with Pakistan are so obvious the only logical conclusion is butthurt.

bottsicus:Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence.

Actually, when you consider that "Bush's war" and "Fartbongo's war" are being conducted in completely different manners, and that the former was largely ineffective, but the latter is proving to be much more effective, its not all that funny. It actually makes perfect sense.

piperTom:ShawnDoc: Was he supposed to give the terrorists a few days off just because he won re-election?

Terrorists? What terrorists?!

The only evidence that the victims were terrorists is that those who killed them say so.

But it's all good. Americans only want economic justice (other people's money), evidence and junk like open trials are for nerdsI'm an "independent" who is very loudly upset that Romney lost but will pretend I didn't vote for him.

Good is not the enemy of perfect, at least we're working with Yemen for this.

Keizer_Ghidorah:Then it's a system that will never work, because we would need everyone to cooperate with each other, and that's an impossibility in the Middle East, which has been fighting with itself for the last 2,000 years and shows no sign of stopping.

Can we at least agree on what would be the right thing to do? I agree with you that, practically speaking, it's likely never going to happen. But if we can agree on what the ideal would be, we can strive to move closer to it anytime it's practically possible. Instead of throwing our arms in the air and say "fark it, shoot them all and let God sort it out".

I don't care for what we're doing over there, either, mostly for economic and our troops' safety reasons. But unless something incredible happens, there will be people who view us as enemies to be destroyed for religious, political, or moral reaons. If we leave, they'll be emboldened by our seeming "surrender", and if we stay we're gonna get more people angry. It's become a "damne dif we do, damne dif we don't" scenario.

There are many shades of grey in between those two extremes you know. The goal isn't to eliminate terrorism entirely -- that's probably never going to happen; but rather to reduce it. Every decision we make when it comes to policy needs to be guided by morality as well as practicality. No, you'll never convince the hardcore, religious nutjobs out there; but for every accurate drone strike, for every innocent civilian that isn't killed, and for every family that an American soldier helps and defends, one less otherwise rational young person will decide to join a terrorist organization.

I'm not against drone strikes in and of themselves; I'm worried that the ability to push a button and kill someone may be too attractive to not be abused without oversight.

/of course, we're also partly reaping what we sowed back in the 60's and 70's with our extreme anti-communism attitude that made us do some reprehensible things in places like the Middle East

And you don't think zapping people (sometimes innocent people) of a foreign, sovereign nation isn't going to sow more hatred 30 years down the line?

lakrfool:Smeggy Smurf: ciberido: Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence

lakrfool: Fartbongo?!?

Really?!?!?

Yeah, well, that's Smeggy Smurf for you. It's not exactly the first time.

There's an ignore button if you tire of his shenanigans.

If ChimpyMcFlightsuit was good enough for your side then Fartbongo is good enough.

I'm grateful we are powerful enough to be able to do this and get away with it. If some smaller nation tried to violate international law and disregard the sovereignty of all other nations they might suffer reprisals. But not us. This behavior will never catch up with us. We are bulletproof.

Marine1:naturalbornposer: Terrorist is a buzz word. Our government uses far more terror tactics at home and abroad than any "evil" group of angry foreigners. 9/11 didn't "terrorize" us anywhere near as much as an 11 year war in Afghanistan does to those people.

Keizer_Ghidorah:And I'm laughing at all of you idiots who are so farking terrified that Obama is going to start shooting missiles all over America. It's both sad and hilarious how you've convinced yourselves that Obama is some kind of Angel of Death just waiting for the right opportunity to declare war on us

It's not the terror so much as the hope. They are scared, but they also WANT to be scared, and they WANT to be attacked because it validates them and makes them feel important. It gives them an unamibiguous enemy to fight and in their illogical subconscious it gives them a fantasy of claiming the glory and heroism they've always wanted but never gotten in their fairly plain and unambitious life. Red Dawn, Wolverines.

jvowles:naturalbornposer: Terrorist is a buzz word. Our government uses far more terror tactics at home and abroad than any "evil" group of angry foreigners. 9/11 didn't "terrorize" us anywhere near as much as an 11 year war in Afghanistan does to those people.

Okay, I'll bite.

I worked in national defense and counter-terrorism for nearly a decade. You're talking utter nonsense when you equate domestic rhetoric and politics with a long-established campaign of terror.

Drone strikes suck; they suck less than leveling cities, which is what we did to put a stop to things in prior wars. They're an imperfect attempt to surgically target real terrorists, and intent DOES matter in this case. As long as using innocents as shields is a tool in the terrorist arsenal, we'll have to find a way to get past that with minimum bloodshed and human suffering.

I agree it would be best in the long run to get the hell out of there. It would be safer for us in the short run, too, but it what it emphatically would NOT be is smart policy, tactically sound, or morally right.

By and large, the US military responds, when using force, with a strong emphasis on avoiding collateral damage like mosques and innocent civilians. We generally use it carefully and with precision unmatched in the history of the world. We failed that standard under Bush; we've done better under Obama. Three-plus years of more sensible policy cannot instantly overcome 8+ years of misery, but our goals are clearer and the mission better defined than ever before.

We also make mistakes, and we have some real idiots and asshats that manage to make it into decision-making positions from time to time. For the most part, we fess up and apologize and try to make it right.

If we cut and run with no plan, which is what one set of our home-grown extremists want, we're saying that our word as a nation is worthless, that we won't honor obligations, and that our commitments to friends and allies amount to little more than air.

If we leave gradually, there's more chance of something stable existing there when we've gone -- and far LESS chance of terrorists regaining a foothold. We overstay our welcome, we create more terrorists. We're on track, for the first time in a decade, to leave war behind in the next two years.

We won't convert the true haters; we will annoy many people who live where we've intruded.

I'm certainly not pro-war, but once begun it needs to be managed carefully.

Typically I would agree with the "finish what you start" path. Afghanistan is (I believe) our longest military commitment in history and progress is not too apparent. I think as a nation or "word" is beginning to translate as "we'll invade and set up shop and stay until the local populous turns into an enemy".

I supported Afghanistan and Iraq when Bush invaded. Then nothing happened except more fighting. We installed a new regime and then what? Wait for them all to go turn white and vote republican? Oil prices didn't even go down (I realize that's not how it works).

Zeb Hesselgresser:aspAddict: Biological Ali: Nobody called Bush a "terrorist" for going after al-Qaeda. This is something that actually never happened. There's no way you could be remembering something like this happening - unless, perhaps, you're misremembering things that people said about Iraq.

Bush is openly criticized for the war efforts.Obama is hailed as a savior for his.

The difference? Obama is giving out shiny stuff to the populace, so yay?

If by shiny stuff you mean food and housing, then yes, yay.

Food stamps, section 8, and an unemployment check. can I get a woot woot!

A U.S. drone strike targeted a group of al-Qaida militants on the outskirts of the Yemeni capital Sanaa on Wednesday night, killing at least three terrorists, government officials said.

Good..keep going until they are all dog meat. Gives the snackbar zealots the finger. Shows them the bottom of his shoe, eats a juicy delicious pork barbeque sammich, watches pron, and sings the national anthem while having a nice cold brew.

manimal2878:Fallout Boy: That just because you are associated with terrorist organizations, it doesn't take away your right as an American to stand trail and have due process?

Maybe you missed it in the early 2000's when everybody was telling you that is exactly what the patriot would allow, but you all hopped on that bandwagon because of the terrorists. Sorry the horse is out of the barn now. If you are labeled a terrorist, like Alwaki, the constitutions no longer applies.

This is nothing new. American Citizens who went to fight with the Nazis in WWII were treated as enemy combatants as well, up to and including killing them along with other enemy soldiers. I have no problem with this: if they fight along side the enemy, I'm not taking the time to check paperwork on the battlefield during combat to only shoot at the bad guys that aren't citizens.